Labour party plan to ensure women's posts are for women only.

ArabellaScott · 2025-05-19T21:06:26+00:00

And activists are not happy. 'The proposals to restrict trans members’ engagement in internal democratic procedures - including by blocking trans women from standing in All Women’s Shortlists, excluding them from National Women’s Conferences, and preventing them standing as Women’s Officers' https://www.prideinlabour.org.uk/post/joint-statement-in-response-to-leaked-nec-paper

BlackForestCake · 23/05/2025 19:18

sweetsardineface · 21/05/2025 13:09

I wish I could leave the Labour Party all over again.

I might join just to leave.

IwantToRetire · 23/05/2025 02:12

Some Labour MPs just don’t seem to have even a basic grasp of the issues, preferring instead to parrot well-worn lines about protecting the trans community. Of course trans people should be protected, but by retreating to this mantra without understanding that this can’t – indeed now must – not be done at the expense of the rights of women seems to be beyond their intellectual powers. Either that or they are pretending not to understand.

To govern is to choose. Treating women like collateral damage is unlikely to be forgotten.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/05/22/labours-attempt-to-hide-its-cowardice-over-trans-rights-won/

https://archive.is/QmWcA

Shortshriftandlethal · 21/05/2025 20:56

They are repeatng the exact same mistakes as before......hoping it will all go away, and being held to ransom by their backbenchers.

sweetsardineface · 21/05/2025 13:09

I wish I could leave the Labour Party all over again.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/05/2025 12:33

I think that might be possible for women members.

DeafLeppard · 21/05/2025 12:32

Surely we can sue the Labour party now for discrimination against women as they've cancelled the event?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/05/2025 12:31

What a novel angle that’s never been covered before.

RNApolymerase · 21/05/2025 12:24

If anyone fancies getting cross at the Guardian this morning do read this all about how sad trans people are.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/21/wednesday-briefing-how-labour-is-handling-the-fallout-from-the-supreme-court-ruling

Wednesday briefing: How Labour is handling the fallout from the equality act ruling

In today’s newsletter: The government has cancelled its women’s conference, citing legal uncertainty after the cupreme court ruling. As the EHRC delays full guidance, frustration and confusion grow

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/21/wednesday-briefing-how-labour-is-handling-the-fallout-from-the-supreme-court-ruling

Ereshkigalangcleg · 21/05/2025 11:57

They just look ridiculous. I expect the other parties are pissing themselves.

EasternStandard · 21/05/2025 11:46

ArabellaScott · 20/05/2025 20:04

They are pretending the Good Law.Project might sue them? I mean, they might.

Show quote history

So we have a Supreme Court ruling but people are too afraid that GLP might sue them and will just cancel stuff instead.

It’s madness. Is there a point we can have our events back

user2848502016 · 21/05/2025 11:16

This is just awful, women just don’t get a conference because some TRAs might complain?! I don’t understand how they can say there might be a legal risk when the law is clear, they jus need to make the conference WOMEN only.
I’m not a Labour Party member but would definitely cancel my membership if I were

orangegato · 21/05/2025 10:01

YourAmplePlumPoster · 20/05/2025 21:15

Every time the likes of Nadia Whittome pipes up from the back benches, the LP loses votes.

She is such a gift to Reform, why does Keir not shut her up? She’s embarrassing them more than they are already embarrassing themselves.

sweetsardineface · 21/05/2025 08:51

Trans identifying men can challenge all they want, and probably will again whenever the conference takes place. The law is clear and Labour have to deal with it. Or, they might just cancel the conference indefinitely to save the feelings of TIMs. This would not surprise me.

sweetsardineface · 21/05/2025 08:47

It’s really not difficult: no men at a women’s conference.

Original poster

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 08:46

It would be discriminatory against men who were barred when trans identifying men were not .

I had thought, though, they were worried that there would be challenge from trans identifying men when they had it women-only.

OP posts:

Original poster

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 08:44

Shortshriftandlethal · 21/05/2025 08:31

I read this morning that the reason given was along the lines of they could be breaking the law would because if transwomen could attend but not other men they could be sued by the men not given access.

They have not read or understood the purpose or content of the ruling at all, have they?

You couldn't make it up!

Show quote history

This party wrote the fucking law.

OP posts:

Shortshriftandlethal · 21/05/2025 08:31

EasternStandard · 20/05/2025 20:55

If it’s not the case it’s just lying at this point isn’t it

Show quote history

I read this morning that the reason given was along the lines of they could be breaking the law would because if transwomen could attend but not other men they could be sued by the men not given access.

They have not read or understood the purpose or content of the ruling at all, have they?

You couldn't make it up!

sweetsardineface · 20/05/2025 22:43

Absolutely pathetic. They know that complying with the law means telling men, no matter how they identify, that they can’t go to the conference. It’s that simple. What do they think will change between now and September?

Original poster

ArabellaScott · 20/05/2025 22:38

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v77rgp4peo

Labour postpones women's conference after Supreme Court ruling

The decision has been condemned by trans rights advocates and by gender critical activists.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7v77rgp4peo

OP posts:

YourAmplePlumPoster · 20/05/2025 21:15

Every time the likes of Nadia Whittome pipes up from the back benches, the LP loses votes.

YourAmplePlumPoster · 20/05/2025 21:12

sweetsardineface · 20/05/2025 20:15

If only these idiots realised how much great work they are doing for Reform.

I think they've just started to realise that this is deeply unpopular among working class voters and they need their votes.

DuesToTheDirt · 20/05/2025 20:56

Honestly, I don't know what the real reasons are behind this, but the optics are: If women won't include men in their meetings, we won't allow them to meet at all.

A couple of the rules of misogyny come to mind:

Women saying no to men is a hate crime.
Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.
Women and Feminism must be useful to men or they are worthless.

EasternStandard · 20/05/2025 20:55

Shortshriftandlethal · 20/05/2025 20:47

Because they are trying to pretend that the supreme court ruling might somehow make the conference against the law.....fuck knows how, or why? They don't either. It is just game play by those backbenchers who still cannot come to terms with the ruling.

Edited

Show quote history

If it’s not the case it’s just lying at this point isn’t it

Shortshriftandlethal · 20/05/2025 20:47

EasternStandard · 20/05/2025 19:06

Why does the Supreme Court ruling mean a legal challenge?

Because they are trying to pretend that the supreme court ruling might somehow make the conference against the law.....fuck knows how, or why? They don't either. It is just game play by those backbenchers who still cannot come to terms with the ruling.

sweetsardineface · 20/05/2025 20:15

If only these idiots realised how much great work they are doing for Reform.